Armies of The Ancient World

[Fenris]

Shark, I do not want to quibble with a fellow Southern Californian. Nor do I intend to. I did not mean to imply that modern historians "make up whatever interpretation that one desires" All I am saying is that absolute numbers of ancient armies, populations etc. are not reliable. As you have pointed out, many historians can agree upon a defined range of numbers. But I was only suggesting that if you took 100 historians and asked them for an estimate of sizes of armies, tha you would get several camps who disagree. With Roman armies we have the luxury of more records than with many cultures. And you have cited some wonderful and specific examples, where estimates are more accurate. In many other cases, the numbers can not be kept to such a small range.
IMC I have two nations, one based off Republican Rome and one based off Imperial Rome and both are fielding armies in the range you are referring to.
And thanks Shark for even introducing such topics here. You always do post great topics.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Shark... you have to have in consideration some factors that havent been well mentioned:

Food... Ancient Rome being an Empire was better suited to transporting food from high production areas (Egypt) to other areas. Medieval Europe had a lower population due to bad harvests it has had in the past and dependence on meat and wheat. Wheat isnt a very efficient crop. Asia´s rice in comparison allowed for much larger populations.

Medieval Europe was a very fragmented society... those small feudal estates had very small capacity to arm and field troops.

Cannae... Rome did have more chance of expendable troops of course... but Cannae if my memory doesnt fail me was a defensive battle and inside Roman Territory. 60k - 90k wouldnt be so hard to get with many irregular or militia troops joining in regular army units. I would have to read Cannae again thou. Yet I tend to agree with those that said historians are notorious exagerrators. Politicians too tend to distort things for their own gain.

Persia... was a major empire at that time... no wonder Rome didnt win easily. Besides horsemen being more common in that empire which made the infantry based army of the romans somewhat vunerable.

Back to Roman military... the soldiers were a tough lot... very very professional and very brutally trained. No other nation had comparable professional armies as did rome. Disposable certainly not... plentiful yes... but the cost of maintanence of this military machine was one of the reasons for Romes downfall... excessive expenditure and dependence of war for economic improvement.

For an interesting account of the Roman style of War and the toughness of the Roman Legionary read about the invasion of Anglesly in Wales:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ancient/anglesey/main.asp

So the numbers are impressive but certainly not absurd... one must just take into account some historical facts ....

 

[Col_Pladoh]

There's a small book, NUMBERS IN HISTORY, as I recall, by Dr. Delbruck, that deals with the matter of grossly exaggerated numbers in accounts of ancient campaigns and battle.

As for European medieval armies, as opposed to those of the Renaissance perior, they were mainly feudal levies, not mercenaries. The proferssional warriors were the nobles, knights, and their immediate retainers. All the people in authority were warriors, the basis of the feudal system, of course.

For an interesting read check out the history of Ferninand's & Isabella's campaigns against the Moors in Spain. It is late medieval history, but all of the troops they raised were feudal levies. Expenses were mainly for supplies and experts in ordinance, the guns and powder.

Ciao,
Gary

 

[MaxKaladin]

It seems to me that the Romans accomplished more under the Republic than they did under the Emperors. They conquered more territory. Much of the Empire was conquered under the republic. Only a few parts like Britain, parts of the middle east, and some of their NE European territory was taken under the emperors. The famous legions were the product of Marius in the 1st century BC under the Republic.

 

[Snoweel]

... using a system of magical portals?

I think there's a sizable proportion of people who want to keep this sort of thing out of their games.

Personally, I don't like it because it makes my logistics rely too little on historical example and too much on hypothesis.

I guess that means I'm just lazy or unimaginative.

 

[Avarice]

I think there's a sizable proportion of people who want to keep this sort of thing out of their games.

Personally, I don't like it because it makes my logistics rely too little on historical example and too much on hypothesis.

I guess that means I'm just lazy or unimaginative.

Not at all, Snoweel. Honestly, I prefer a more real-world feel to my campaigns as well. All I'm saying is that in a highly organized and educated society with access to plentiful magic, a "highway" system of portals would make a great deal of sense. There would no doubt be a vast number of other changes as well: guilds of weather-controlling wizards to ensure the fertility of crops in key regions, networks of interconnected scrying devices for instantaneous communication, and assembly lines of low level casters to craft simple magical items for the masses, just to name a few possibilities. Such a society could easily outstrip Rome at its height.

That said, I find that such a society usually makes better background material for a campaign than it does a main stage. It just seems to get too difficult to really wow the players... Of course, YMMV.

 

[LostSoul]

A high magic world would probably be like Dune. Awesome power held in check by the awesome powers of others. Everybody on the knifes edge.

Damn straight. What a cool campaign that would be, politics and power based on Wars of Assasins.

"'The art of kanly still has admirers in the Empire.'"

"'Kanly, is it?' the Baron asked. 'Vendetta, heh? And he uses the nice old word so rich in tradition to be sure I know he means it.'"

The ruling elite would be the children of high-level characters, most probably high-level characters themselves. They would employ other high-level characters to divine information, fight off threats, make daring, split-second teleport raids, and train the next generation of warriors.

Starting characters could be trained under the supervision of these high-level characters, sent on dangerous, subtle missions which have long-reaching consequences. They could become embroiled in webs of trechery and deciet, not knowing who to trust or who to believe. As they rise in level, the PCs become power brokers of thier own.

 

[Rashak Mani]

What would balance a high power campaign is that high level characters or NPCs are usually more interested in their own business than Nations businesses.

The few that do "care" for politics and conquering neighbors will be matched and stopped by other also high level characters. Maybe not from the Attacked nation... but certainly from other countries wanting to avoid their enemies from growing too much.

 

[Reprisal]

KoK Applications...

I noticed that (SHARK?) said something to the nature of "wheat is an inefficient crop ... compared to rice."

Now, reading the Kingdoms of Kalamar Campaign Setting, I find that the largest of the Kingdoms, Kalamar itself, has rice as its staple crop...

So, here we have the largest empire in the campaign setting with a highly organized, authoritarian society and military. I'm suddenly thinking that I've not paid the right amount of respect in regards to the Vast Empire of Kalamar...

It strikes me that a lot of knowledge was lost during the period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the time of Charlemagne (Dark Ages)... Imagine if that knowledge was never lost!

 

[Corinth]

I'd like to see an analysis of the various troop types of the period.